From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: raid1 oops in 2.6.9 (debian package 2.6.9-1-686-smp)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041129100707.GX4469@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041128142840.GA4119@mur.org.uk>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:28:41PM +0000, Robert Murray wrote:
> Hi
>
> The complete console log can be found at http://haylott.plus.com/~robbie/md-oops.txt
>
> hde is a failed drive. In this log, hdg (the other drive in the raid1
> array) is not present. This oops also occurs when hdg is present. I
> don't know why it tries to use hde when it has been failed for some
> time now. This doesn't occur with 2.6.8 (also a debian kernel). I
> don't have a log of the oops when hdg was present, but I can provide
> one if necessary.
>
> Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to
> help to debug this. For now I have removed hde and everything is
> working fine.
On a second note: Could someone please provide an explanation of why
the raid10 driver exists? People have created RAID-10 sets for years
using the RAID-0 driver on top of several RAID-1 arrays - this works
beautifully, it's simple, and it's easy to explain to people.
Why oh why, do we need raid10 ?
(I don't mean to bitch and moan over it - I just assume that there is a
good reason for it which was somehow never conveyed, or that I
overlooked in my search for this explanation)
And; if raid10 does not provide new functionality that was not possible
with raid1 + raid0, why oh why does this get accepted in a stable kernel
series? (ok, 2.6 is not stable, but I assume the intention is to make
it stable eventually, and accepting new functionality does not help this
process - all in all I do not understand the raid10 submission at all,
but I hope to be enlightened by someone (Neil?))
Also, I'd love to add a mention of raid10 in the HOWTO, but I need to
know why raid10 even exists before I can reasonably do that.
--
/ jakob "baffled Software-RAID HOWTO co-author"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-29 10:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-28 14:28 raid1 oops in 2.6.9 (debian package 2.6.9-1-686-smp) Robert Murray
2004-11-29 10:07 ` Jakob Oestergaard [this message]
2004-11-29 12:02 ` Jurriaan
2004-11-29 12:51 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2004-11-30 1:58 ` Neil Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041129100707.GX4469@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.